Hearns obsession with belts has put AJ between a rock and a hard place

This. Losing the belts didn't ruin Joshua, it's who he lost them to and the manner of that loss. And the narrative before that fight was partially about Joshua holding 3 major belts and wanting all 4, but it was also about him being the best heavyweight in the world. He needs to right the wrong, if he avoids the rematch and fights a lesser man than Ruiz Jr, will he fill a stadium? If he doesn't hold belts, fill stadiums or sell millions of PPVs, what incentive is there for the other big guys to fight him of he reaches that level again?

He needs this rematch.

 

For what reasons? If it is to avoid a mandatory to have a bigger fight or whatever then fair enough.

When you have held three world titles, your last 8 fights have been for world titles and you have earned as much as AJ has of course the belts are important. From a financial point, the belts are huge - big fights have belts on the line, that is the overall goal in boxing. From a status standpoint, the belts are massive - how can you claim to be the best when you have no belts? Motivation wise, I am sure AJ will train harder knowing he is fighting to bring the belts back to the UK. Every way you look at it the belts are massive.

 

One thing that winds me up with Hearn is when he says a boxer is fighting for the 'world title'. For example "Darren Barker is fighting Felix Sturm for the world title'.

It's not 'the world title' it is a version of it and means sweet f*ck all when GGG has a couple of others! He does it all the time, I get it is promoting but winds me up. He done it with Joshua all the time and used to say things like "Wilder isn't going to get 50/50 for a fight with the World Heavyweight Champion".

 

The current Ring Magazine no.1 heavyweight does not hold any belts. The same situation applied in 1968-69 (Ali), 1987 (Michael Spinks) and 1995 (Bowe).

If the belts are massive, how big would a fight need to be in order to give them up? Surely that concept itself underlines that the belts are often of secondary importance to the fighters?

There have been various circumstances where fighters have chosen to give a belt up (some more noble than others), but the common denominator is that the fighter felt they didn't need the belt. Holmes, Tyson, Bowe, Foreman, Lewis and Michael Spinks did not value their belts enough to let them dictate who they should fight. Holmes fought Marvis Frazier instead of Greg Page. Tyson fought Bruce Seldon instead of Lennox Lewis. Bowe fought Mike Dokes instead of Lennox Lewis. Foreman fought Axel Schulz instead of Tony Tucker. Lewis fought Michael Grant instead of John Ruiz. Spinks fought a shot Gerry Cooney instead of Tucker. None of them were really furthering their careers or establishing dominance by giving up their titles. There was very little adverse impact on their status as a result of giving up the belt. In these instances, the belts just didn't matter that much, either to fans or the fighters themselves.

Very few people will be able to recall which belts were on the line when Mayweather fought Pacquaio and De La Hoya, or when Tyson fought Holyfield. People worldwide were paying to see who would win, and not who would walk away with whatever belt was on the line. Would more people have bought those fights if there were multiple alphabet titles on the line?

There are scenarios where AJ could get some or all of the belts back by playing the alphabet game, waiting for easy titles to become available, and then exploiting those opportunities against lesser opponents. If he won titles that way, no-one would overlook that he had ducked the rematch and that Ruiz had beaten him decisively. For Joshua, restoring his rep is about reversing the loss, rather than winning a belt. If it's the latter he might as well line up Charr (or whoever holds the WBA title) and save himself a lot of effort.

 

The examples you just gave of fighters turning down fights for belts and fighting someone else is pretty redundant really, there are 100x as many examples where fighters have turned down a non-title fight to go and fight for a belt. So pointing out individual instances is pretty pointless.

If hypothetically Ruiz got stripped of all three belts and AJ had a crack at the IBF against Pulev, there is absolutely no way he chooses the rematch with Ruiz to earn back some 'rep'. He wouldn't even be thinking about Ruiz he would take the Pulev fight and do everything he can to win a belt.

 

I think in this day and age. A Belt solidifies a big money fight more than a fight without it.

a grudge match between 2 fighters that dislike each other is probably the only way a BIG fight sells now (haye/bellew and joshua/whyte).

 

Examples of nearly every major heavyweight of the era treating individual belts as unimportant are pretty pointless in a debate about how important belts are??

Likewise, examples of fighters who have been recognised as the no.1 fighter despite not holding a belt, surely puts into perspective that it's not always all about the belts?

In that scenario it would be a paper title. Joshua would still be rated below Fury, Wilder and Ruiz, like he is now. As things are he can only regain his previous standing by going through one of those three, regardless of what belts he acquires along the way.

 

We are going to go round in circles here. A belt in my view is the pinnacle of boxing, being undisputed is historical, title fights are generally for more money than non-title fights, fighters with world titles are generally more respected within boxing, world title holders are generally more marketable to the casual market, title fights are easier to put on PPV, title fights generally bring in more money on the gate and lastly from a decor point of view they look lovely on a mantle piece.

And AJ and his team would much rather a 'paper belt' than a hard fought rematch with Ruiz for some hard, cold 'rep'.

 

Slightly unrelated but I see Arum’s said that he believes they shouldn’t rush Joshua into a rematch with Ruiz. I’ve said the same myself, let the belts go wherever, re-evaluate, work on the weaknesses, get his confidence back up by matching him up with a couple of decent ranked albeit knock-over jobs. Let the fans memory of getting pummelled by a fat little Mexican fade & he’ll be back challenging for titles next year.

 

It’s not that simple though mate. He’s worked hard to collect 3 (4) belts. In today’s modern age of every fighter on different networks and all the contracts and politics that come with it, it’s going to be near on impossible to get that close to being undisputed again.

Being undisputed heavyweight champion of the world is the absolute pinnacle of the sport, whether you’re Joshua, Fury, Wilder or anyone else.

 

Going to be very difficult to achieve now unless he had an illness or serious injury going into the fight on Saturday.

If the above not a reason then it looks like the next Big Dave Price has unexpectedly appeared from nowhere.

We know how painful it is watching Big Dave mate when even a mild power punch lands.

 

I do agree mate, but it just seems such a huge risk....win and he’s back in the game to become undisputed, lose and he’s got to build himself up Whyte style or he might not even recover. If he really believes he can go back in and deal with Ruiz then fair enough. I’d genuinely be interested to know what McCracken thought. He’s going to support Joshua in whatever decision but I wonder if he’d like to take him back to the drawing board a bit?

 

Has anyone considered if AJ loses the rematch he may just retire?
He never needs to fight again and im fairy sure he has been advised well with the money he has made

Its personally what i see

 

Yeah when you’ve been following boxing a while pal you’ll realise “Eddie Hearns says...” a whole host of things